USA so called golden age, ca 1945 to 70s seems a myth to me?

[Denkt]

I'm from Sweden and not sure USA ever was a particular great country compared to its peers and the idea it was in some sort of golden age after ww2 seems untrue. Sure real wage growth maybe looked atleast on paper better than it do today for USA (but that perhaps don't really tell that much), but compared to other countries at the same it overall improvement in wage growth and reduction in workhours seems to been on the poorer side compared to what other countries see. Maybe more telling is that USA life expectency in 1945 was similar and worse than some countries occupied during ww2 such as Denmark and by 1970 USA seems to have fallen behind a lot of countries that was occupied during ww2 or was doing worse in 1945. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

To me it seems like in the so called golden age, if anything USA was falling behind, so I'm not sure how people can consider that a golden age, in fact it seems to have had many of the problem back than as it have today, which probably make a lot of sense to be honest, rather than the idea it went from exceptional good to exceptional bad compared to other developed countries, it more seems like it made less improvements overtime compared to those countries and was maybe not really even ahead in 1945.

 

[Kyriakos]

US had a massive part of global GDP in the aftermath of ww2, so in that respect yes, it was its golden age

 

[AmazonQueen]

Golden Ages tend to be the result of using rose-tinted glasses.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm from Sweden and not sure USA ever was a particular great country compared to its peers and the idea it was in some sort of golden age after ww2 seems untrue. Sure real wage growth maybe looked atleast on paper better than it do today for USA (but that perhaps don't really tell that much), but compared to other countries at the same it overall improvement in wage growth and reduction in workhours seems to been on the poorer side compared to what other countries see. Maybe more telling is that USA life expectency in 1945 was similar and worse than some countries occupied during ww2 such as Denmark and by 1970 USA seems to have fallen behind a lot of countries that was occupied during ww2 or was doing worse in 1945. https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy

To me it seems like in the so called golden age, if anything USA was falling behind, so I'm not sure how people can consider that a golden age, in fact it seems to have had many of the problem back than as it have today, which probably make a lot of sense to be honest, rather than the idea it went from exceptional good to exceptional bad compared to other developed countries, it more seems like it made less improvements overtime compared to those countries and was maybe not really even ahead in 1945.

Whatever statistics you may want to apply to the period, the reason USians tag that period as a golden age is because of the globalization of US culture into the rest of the world. Both the youth culture and the business culture grew to greater and greater influence from the mid fifties through the 1970s. WW2 had sent Americans all around the world and they took US culture with them and much of it "stuck". US politics often dominated during the cold war as the US faced off against Russia. As I see it, it was a golden age of influence that reached into places it had never been.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Not to mention it was the height of US industry. Mainly due to the massive industrial base built during WW2.

 

[Denkt]

US had a massive part of global GDP in the aftermath of ww2, so in that respect yes, it was its golden age

Which is pretty meaningless given it don't seems to benefit the people, like massive GDP but life expectency that had recently been occupied in a world war and a few decades later behind those countries. I feel USA wealth is greatly exaggerated compared to reality (seems to have a lot of poorly maintained houses and buildings and so on compared to other countries from what I can tell on pictures and youtube), it is a country that is severaly lacking in so many things even during those times let alone today.
Even the best doing states seems pretty mediocre compared to many developed countries and the worst states are doing worse than some countries that are considered developing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Which is pretty meaningless given it don't seems to benefit the people, like massive GDP but life expectency that had recently been occupied in a world war and a few decades later behind those countries. I feel USA wealth is greatly exaggerated compared to reality (seems to have a lot of poorly maintained houses and buildings and so on compared to other countries from what I can tell on pictures and youtube), it is a country that is severaly lacking in so many things even during those times let alone today.
Even the best doing states seems pretty mediocre compared to many developed countries and the worst states are doing worse than some countries that are considered developing.

The US has many faults and inequalities. Those become more apparent as the population scales up. A 15% poverty rate among a population of 30 million is one thing; it is another for a nation of 200 million. A Golden Age is attached to times and places not because they are perfect or even prosperous for all. They get attached when one looks back and identifies a time when a nation felt robust and powerful and influential. They gloss over all the bad stuff. The 1950s-70s in the US were tumultuous times of great unrest and change across most aspects of US culture. A long list is easy to make. As a leading edge baby boomer that came of age in those days I can attest to both perspectives on the issue. I would even suggest that the turmoil of those days was part of the importance of the US being influential. They were glorious and troubled times.

 

[Denkt]

USA seems very strange, like it don't seems to really have developed the basic public infrastructure to take care of its people like other countries have and I don't understand why as it seems to make everyone, including the rich people significantly worse of than in other countries that manage to develop their infrastructure.

 

[Zardnaar]

USA seems very strange, like it don't seems to really have developed the basic public infrastructure to take care of its people like other countries have and I don't understand why as it seems to make everyone, including the rich people significantly worse of than in other countries that manage to develop their infrastructure.

It was a lit different back then. Richest country in the world, industrial, military power house.

Note a lit if golden ages and rukrrs with "the great" titles fail modern morality hard.

USA had an absurd proportion of the worlds trade and oil back then. Wages doubled in the war years.

Wasn't so good if you were black and in the South.

 

[Denkt]

I don't know, the information I can find seems to give a real wage growth for USA between 1945 to 1972 between 75% and 100% and pretty much no real wage growth afterwards, maybe even a real wage decline and a realwage growth to reach back to 1972 levels in 2020s.

Which seems to compare poorly to wage growths I can find for Sweden which is maybe 100% to 200% for both blue and white collar workers between like 1945 to 73, a stagnation from 73 to 95 and then an additional 50%-60% or so wage growth up to 2021 and this probably don't even take account for how much less people in Sweden work today compared to the past while not much reduction in workhours in USA seems to been made.
The average wage in 1972 in USA seems to been about $800 per week using 2015 inflation value which would be about $41600 for 52 weeks work, a wage I've been told is may not be enough to even retire on. If it had continue to growth like the swedish wages, it would be more like $60000-75000 and probably more like $100000 if wages in the 40s and beyond followed similar growth rate as Sweden.
So it seems USA wages have done very poorly in terms of long term growth. And from what I understand, even $100 000 may not even be that good wage anymore in USA due to the ever increasing costs.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't know, the information I can find seems to give a real wage growth for USA between 1945 to 1972 between 75% and 100% and pretty much no real wage growth afterwards, maybe even a real wage decline and a realwage growth to reach back to 1972 levels in 2020s.

Which seems to compare poorly to wage growths I can find for Sweden which is maybe 100% to 200% for both blue and white collar workers between like 1945 to 73, a stagnation from 73 to 95 and then an additional 50%-60% or so wage growth up to 2021 and this probably don't even take account for how much less people in Sweden work today compared to the past while not much reduction in workhours in USA seems to been made.
The average wage in 1972 in USA seems to been about $800 per week using 2015 inflation value which would be about $41600 for 52 weeks work, a wage I've been told is may not be enough to even retire on. If it had continue to growth like the swedish wages, it would be more like $60000-75000 and probably more like $100000 if wages in the 40s and beyond followed similar growth rate as Sweden.
So it seems USA wages have done very poorly in terms of long term growth. And from what I understand, even $100 000 may not even be that good wage anymore in USA due to the ever increasing costs.

War years wages went through the roof.

Scandinavia prosperity is a reasonably recent development btw. USA was still "winning" into the 80's.

In real terms (ignoring micro and petro states) Scandinavia, Germany, Canada, Australia about the best it gets on the planet now.

Several of those states won the geography jackpot+small population+effective government.

 

[mdl5000]

To me the American golden age seemed to be towards the end of the 19th century, and a tad beyond, in terms of the leaps and bounds made in technology.

It's just that 1) there are many many baby boomers all with a collective imagination who tell us the post-war years were the best years and 2) there was widespread diffusion of American tastes around the world after the war which probably would have happened in time anyway...had it not been for most of the other major belligerents being utterly smashed.

but I'd like to hear how I'm wrong.

 

[Hygro]

The "golden age" from 1930s-1970s is hard to overstate.

Incomes were going up fast and evenly across all quintiles.
Civil rights for all categories were moving super fast in a positive direction and winning against fierce opposition.
Economy was consistently growing.
The forces of democracy were triumphing in a rare and sustained era of victory against oligarchy.

There were lots of bad things during that era, but the direction of change was unusually good.

 

[amadeus]

I don’t think the export of American culture postwar accounted for a terrible lot of the good economic times that went, roughly, from 1950-1970. Nor was it good that America’s “competitors” in Europe and Asia had much of their capital stock destroyed, that’s another myth that needs to be quashed. Broken window parable, yada yada yada.

The recovery of capital and reinvestment into consumer goods, buoyed by America’s vast natural resources and large labor pool, made the country so prosperous in the postwar period.

 

[Farm Boy]

What. You think being "the good state" pays? How did that work out for Jesus?

I'd link more Ken Burn's Vietnam clips, but the IP Lords make that hard.

 

[E.man]

Possibly what we're seeing here is the difference between Swedish and US views of what 'Golden ' means. Common good versus individual benefit perhaps?.

 

[Farm Boy]

How is that different when not in the moment?

Edit: on second thought, I think you're right. The worst of us won. They reside triumphant. Go Assclown!?

 

[Denkt]

Possibly what we're seeing here is the difference between Swedish and US views of what 'Golden ' means. Common good versus individual benefit perhaps?.

Maybe, I don't think people in Sweden really consider any time of the country's history as a golden age, like we have the great power era but I'm not sure that is the same thing.

Scandinavia prosperity is a reasonably recent development btw. USA was still "winning" into the 80's.

Depend what you mean with winning, in various health messures it seems like USA have been behind like Sweden and some other countries since like late 19th century and unlike many other countries have still never been able to reach parity with those countries.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Maybe, I don't think people in Sweden really consider any time of the country's history as a golden age, like we have the great power era but I'm not sure that is the same thing.

I've seen both 1870-1914 and post-WW2 to the oil crisis described as a golden age for Sweden, both periods of rapid growth, the latter combined with percieved improvements in equality and social justice.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Going back to the original comparison.

The USA had a much higher population increases (birthrate and immigration) than most European countries.

And countries with higher birthrates tend to have lower life expectancies.